Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/029

Fullstop Cop

Fullstop Cop (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log) seems to be another sock puppet of a rather persistent vandal. --Ixfd64 (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Y Done, blocked indef by admin. -- Cirt (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Transclusion problems

There currently seems to be some kind of transclusion problems with the main page and other pages using the QOTD template at Template:Quote of the day— and I am having difficulty understanding why this has suddenly occurred or how to fix it. I initially thought I might have formatted the current QOTD wrong — but it is showing up on all page purges I do on previous use of the QOTD template. Wikiquote:Quote of the day/February 2016 is showing an aberration of a demand for a non-included "Wikiquote:Quote of the day/February 2016/doc" — and a similarly on the main page and others, there is a warning:

If you are viewing this page, you may not be aware of Wikipedia's template documentation pattern. Template documentation subpage should be prefixed by the name of the template. Create the main page for your template on page: Template:TemplateNameMain Page.

Examples:

bad good

Template:/doc Template:Tl/doc

Template:/doc Template:Non-free media/doc

Template:/doc Template:ArticleHistory/doc

Thank you.

I have no idea why this problem has suddenly arisen. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 00:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

There is definitely a major new software problem: I just did a page purge for the February 5 page, and a previously well formatted page was ravaged — as I expect would be the case for any new rendering of the MANY pages using the QOTD template. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 00:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The problem seems to be going away now, as suddenly as it began, so I am assuming someone is addressing it. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 01:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I also see this problem. I tweaked Template:Quote of the day to address a potential problem (something that did not cause trouble previously but may not conform to some recent software change) and it appears to fix the pages I tested. I hope it is okay now. ~ Ningauble (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Your tweak will probably address any similar problems in the future, as it seems to be along the lines of what the warnings were indicating, while the problem was active. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 02:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Lilboy2002

Vandalism only account ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 20:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

This vandal has now been permanently blocked. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 23:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. These guys don't let up. – Illegitimate Barrister, 01:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

X-MEN articles LOQ

20spokesperson (talk · contributions) has been hellbent these past several days on reverting trims to Days of Future Past and First Class. Such editing activity's been evident from him for months now as IPs...87Stone (talk · contributions) could well be a sock because that user primarily works on those articles, those of other X-men films or any horror material. He repeatedly fails to understand that what he's doing is not in line with LOQ protocols and his edit summaries seem very asinine and childish. I think this guy should be brought to heel because he really doesn't get it. --Eaglestorm (talk) 15:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• Just to give us some time to sort this out, I have locked both pages in their current state. BD2412 T 16:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I think this has gone on long enough. Miszatomic deleted a talk message from 87Stone that's apparently the first movement from that account in nearly ten days. This move, plus the IPs that have been pinpointed to a city in Southeast Asia, are indications of a vandalism-only account and should be blocked along with 20spokesperson. The talk message should be hidden as well. --Eaglestorm (talk) 07:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

This has been done. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Update: he's been on the prowl and has sent me more hate mail through another IP whose editing history also includes articles of concern. Horror films are not my forte, but if anybody could heavily cull the bloats he's done, it'll be worth it bringing him to heel. To be honest, its outright stupidity to declare what WP states as ownership of articles in an article you create and tell off people against editing stuff they created. I warned you about this 20spokesperson and you just had to be a bigger asshole than I'd give you credit for. Wave the white flag now, you're dead, kid.--Eaglestorm (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

FYI, the user has been blocked. From what I've understand is that appearantly 20spokeperson has been sending hate mail through Special:EmailUser.. in that case, the ability to email should be removed as well. Thanks! ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 17:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Category:Requests for unblock

As I'm not an administrator, can someone proceed to take care of these unblocks to reduce useless clutter? Thanks! ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 17:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• The clutter is not noticeable except by people actively looking for it.--Abramsky (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Request for impartial review

Could someone please take a look at Criminal Minds for the recent content dispute I have had with another user. While I hate to get into such edit wars (and usually avoid them completely), I now find myself in one. I've tried to engage in a discussion with the other user (see User talk:Njorent) without any response. My only main points are that the character links (that I spent a lot of time adding to the first two seasons, and had planned to add for the rest) should remain and that if there are more than the allotted 5 quotes per episode that are memorable, the ones where a character is quoting a famous person should be sacrificed (some might even say that these should be removed altogether as not original to the TV show itself) versus quotes actually written by the shows writers. In any case, I will step back for now and await someone else taking a look. Thanks! ~ UDScott (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@UDScott: Blocked the user and left a note on their user talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Sludgepump

Hello,

Just a note that I used my steward rights to stop this vandal earlier today, and reverting some of the pagemove vandalism he did. Please modify any actions I have taken accordingly.

Thanks, Ajraddatz (talk) 04:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

He's been blocked. Good riddance to the slimebag. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Back as Aardvaarks on fire yo (talk · contributions). --Ixfd64 (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Blocked user CensoredScribe ‎

• CensoredScribe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Blocked double time from last block by Kalki (talk · contributions).

For same repeated behavior as from prior block by Kalki (talk · contributions), in addition to addition of irrelevant quotes, and disruption of the site.

I see prior discussion at:

1. Wikiquote:Village_pump#Ban_proposal:_CensoredScribe
2. Wikiquote:Village_pump#Block_of_1_month_proposed_by_Kalki
3. Wikiquote:Village_pump#CensoredScribe_and_bare_URLs
4. Wikiquote:Village_pump#CensoredScribe_still_working_diligently_to_bring_Wikiquote.27s_standards_down

Note: Any other admin please feel free to change or modify my block here, no objections.

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• I endorse this block. If the disruptive editing resumes after the block expires, as I expect it will, then I will support a motion to ban CensoredScribe from Wikiquote entirely. I felt that the previous ban proposal was premature because at the time this user had not yet been blocked here (banning should not be the first resort). ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I think a reasonable alternative to a site ban would be a probationary status wherein CensoredScribe must submit all proposed additions (properly formatted and fully cited) for some level of community approval before they can be added to a page. BD2412 T 11:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
    • That sounds reasonable, in theory, but I fear that this user still does not even understand what is wrong with most of the additions. We can certainly try it, but I have little expectation that useful content will be forthcoming. ~ UDScott (talk) 11:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
      • In theory, I think committing to hold a community discussion for each new contribution would bear a strong resemblance to setting up a feeding station in the wrong place. Peter1c has made a valiant attempt at mentoring and others have offered good advice but, given that this character showed up with a chip on his shoulder from the outset, I think the failure to understand what Wikiquote is about is only the surface of a deeper problem with having an agenda that is incompatible in the first place. We can discuss next steps more fully when CensoredScribe returns. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

CensoredScribe created Democratic Republic of the Congo today with the poor quality (and hardly notable or memorable) quote:

• "Since the pull out of the electronics companies there has been a tremendous surge by the Congolese government and local mining companies seeking an alternative market with the Chinese.
• It is still at an early stage simply because most of the mines are in very remote areas, and since we still have rogue armed groups here and there, you never know. But also more significantly, the fact that Congo is lacking communications infrastructure in terms of roads, so we need to go step by step.

• Fidel Bafilemba How conflict minerals funded a war that killed millions, Techreublic"

(The formatting is equally terrible.) And he's still adding irrelevant quotes to articles. ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:21, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe this user CensoredScribe should be banned from the Wikiquote project. See this edit made while suspended: https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CensoredScribe&diff=prev&oldid=2128148 IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe it odd I haven't received a thank you from the sockpuppet and utterer of the paraphrased phrase, "don't say wierd because it's homophobic" Peter1c for bible and homosexuality related articles, nor a detailed explanation of what I did wrong from Daniel Tom who normally barks, url, source, title, date; which I've been abiding by along with the explanation as to the articles awards that made it quotable. Ok, I believe you that my quote was badly formatted because the date wasn't actually listed and no one here uses aces dates in place of publication dates. Provide URL to errors or STFU!' Feel free to add your better quote on the Democratic Republic of Congo, or provide constructive criticism like you were taught was more polite and more productive in grade school. I assume accusing someone of socking is acceptable seeing as check user doesn't actually reveal much of anything; at least that's what I've gathered from my fallacious and dare I say libelous wikipedia sockpuppet investigations since joining here. CensoredScribe (talk) 05:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• Well, it looks like Wikiquote admins will let CensoredScribe destroy another thousand articles before finally blocking him again. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Y  I have blocked this user again for a period of three months due to "Continued trolling, incivility, and disruption with pointedly inappropriate additions and revisions to Wikiquote articles, all of which have been remarked by multiple contributors". ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• I have subsequently extended the block to six months and revoked talk page privileges because his response to the block notice was ad hominem and made objectively false statements about other contributors (to wit, that only two users remarked on problems with his activity, and that it was I who called him the most incompetent user ever). Other administrators may wish to consider whether it might be more appropriate to block this user for a longer period of ten years (as at RationalWiki) or indefinitely (as at Wikipedia). ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Preserving promotional materials (cross-wiki abuse)

In recent months there have been several cases of users who created inappropriate articles at Wikipedia, consisting of résumés, spammy screeds, or other self-promotional materials, who were indefinitely blocked at Wikipedia for doing it repeatedly, and who thereupon proceeded to carry on the same activity here at Wikiquote. Thus far this is an old story, but there is a new wrinkle that I would like to call to the attention of Wikiquote's administrators.

In the past this sort of inappropriate content was routinely deleted, but recently an administrator (Kalki) has been preserving these materials by moving them to user pages, as evidenced in these three examples: Anonymous Organization, Allwyn Immanuel, and Arshabha arya.

The same administrator even declined an explicit request to delete this sort of material, on the grounds that the user had blundered "... but not necessarily more intolerably than the blunders of other neophytes ...". I want to emphasize that these are not innocent newbies. These users were repeatedly warned and ultimately blocked at Wikipedia as clearly not here [there] to build an encyclopedia. Only then, in full knowledge that what they were doing was unacceptable, or in complete disregard of the experience, did they come to Wikiquote to carry on the same activity where they were not yet blocked. (Most of these accounts have subsequently been globally locked for cross-wiki abuse, and the latest one may well also become locked for posting the same thing across multiple wikis.)

Now therefore I submit the general question to Wikiquote's administrators:  Should we be preserving and archiving inappropriate articles that were expunged from Wikipedia by moving them to Wikiquote user pages, or is it the proper role of Wikiquote administrators to speedily delete article submissions that are wholly inappropriate? ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• Delete them all. We do ourselves no favors by serving as a webhost for promotional materials, particularly those relating to users who contribute nothing other than self-promotion. BD2412 T 18:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
• Delete - I fully agree. We should not serve as a landing spot for such content. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
• Delete as Wikiquote cannot serve as a web host. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 18:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
• Delete such pages as described. I certainly have no objections to such pages being deleted, but have some objections to the skewed presentations about the recent incidents which have been crafted here. This is indeed "an old story", but you seem to be implying that a "new wrinkle" involves some kind of extreme alteration of policies, or perhaps even an actual drive on my part to initiate one "promoting" such mere "vanity pages" of individuals promoting various agenda, such as have long been discouraged and rejected. The very heading of this section seems to predicate an accusation that I am in some way intent on "Preserving promotional materials (cross-wiki abuse)". I believe that in the stated incidents, I was merely being cautiously and to some extent appropriately civil and polite to new editors here whose activities elsewhere I had little time or inclination to investigate to any extensive degree, beyond perhaps sometimes checking that they were not outright vandals or spammers. Such cautious forbearance, even when dealing with those who clearly lack it, was once far more common among admins on the Wikimedia wikis than in recent years, for various understandable or sometimes very poorly understood reasons.
  The ridiculous excesses of various idiots who seek to glorify themselves in various ways or promote forms of self-aggrandizement of their particular personalities or personal inclinations is something I believe most people have learned to recognize as an all too common personality flaw among many people, which is hardly a new situation, and hardly one that I am willing to welcome or accommodate more than I am willing to tactfully confront. I believe that it has not been an extremely uncommon thing to tolerate many of the subtle and overt forms of such vanity and vain presumptions and vain efforts to various degrees — especially where there is little or no sign of persistent disruption in such efforts. I confess that I actually tend to usually pay very little attention to such inclinations if they are not overtly malicious or mendacious — and in most such incidents swiftly turn my focus to other matters of greater general significance, rather than fixating upon them. There are a few persistent problems with some editors which I believe provide much greater reason for general and persistent concern, but presently lacking both time and inclination to present some clear rationales for dealing with them effectively, I continue to simply observe various aspects of them, and consider various options for eventually responding more overtly.
  I observed this section yesterday, when briefly checking in, had to leave before responding, and once again have only a brief time here to make responses, after deleting a bit more of the spambot creations, and a page Mateo Testa created by Gcapernaum (talk · contributions) which clearly fell into this sort of category. In moving one of these pages out of article space yesterday morning, to the user's user page — as has occasionally been done for years, in my rush to attending to deleting a few nonsense pages before leaving, initially, I inadvertently forgot to UNCHECK the box to leave a redirect behind in article space, but very soon after deleted that page, within a very short time. I repeat that I certainly have no significant objections to such pages being deleted, especially in the common situations where they remain the primary or sole "contributions" of such editors. I will also assert that for many years, tolerating or confronting such incidents to varying degrees, when they are not overt commercial spam, has actually occurred many times without very major contentions about the matter, and I believe making a bigger deal than normal about occasionally encountering such incidents in recent months is far more of a "new wrinkle" to the situation than anything else of which I am aware. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 11:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC) + tweaks

I just now moved a similar page out of article space onto the user page of Ericmichaelleventhal (talk · contributions). I have posted a notice of this action here, for review of others. Arguably the subject of the page might meet perhaps meet notability requirements as a quoted author, but as it currently seems to have been a creation of that author, such a page is of course far more problematic.

I will again note that it is hardly an entirely "new" procedure to do such things as moving pages or material created in "article" space to "User pages", as for some years now, this has occasionally been done, and a template has existed since 2007 and has been widely used which reads:

Thank you for your effort to contribute to our project, but Wikiquote exists for the collecting of notable quotations of famous people and famous works, not for the posting of quotations of people not yet famous in some field. Within bounds of Wikimedia policy, registered users can put quotes of themselves or people they know on their user pages. For a quick overview of what Wikiquote is, read Wikiquote:Wikiquote, and also What Wikiquote is not for a list of common activities that Wikiquote does not support.

It might perhaps be just a coincidental anomaly, but having 2 efforts to create "promotional pages" in article space on the project in the very brief time since the issue of such pages was somewhat more prominently publicized on this page in recent days is actually quite an upsurge in such efforts at promotion — a more normal pace might be one or two a month, if that. There are all manner of subtle or overt means by which people engaged in normal activities on wiki projects can be disrupted and distracted from the primary purposes of the wiki, and it is often frustrating and usually lamentable when this occurs, from whatever motives it is done. As I stated, I am making brief note of the recent move I made for review here, able and willing to accept community consensus on any particular applications of such transfer of material from inappropriate placement in "article space", and once again, must be preparing to leave. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 12:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC) + tweak

I have reviewed this action, and consider it a particularly heinous example of a self-promoting, self-published writer whose sole activity here is self-quoting with spam links to a page hawking his book and to a commercial site offering such dubious services as ghostwriting college application essays (hardly the hallmark of an arguably notable writer).

There are all manner of subtle or overt means by which people can exploit open hosting sites for self promotion. Self-quoting at places like Goodreads (as this person has done) is a recommended publicity technique for writers who eschew, or are eschewed by, the publishing industry, because any number of "famous quotation" sites will spread them around when their robots crawl the interestnet. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• Delete and if necessary block the user (probably only after repeated attempts to create such pages).--Abramsky (talk) 13:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Village Pump closed to newcomers

The heading above may appear shocking to some, but I use it as a case in point to draw attention to a broader issue about use of this admin tool.

In this case, the Village Pump was semiprotected indefinitely yesterday, preventing unregistered and newly registered users from raising questions or participating in discussions. I think it is a very bad idea to bar newcomers from using our main discussion board – we should make every effort to keep the front door open. While it does receive a significant amount of vandalism, I think it is well worth the effort for administrators and other regular users to watchlist the page and respond promptly to incidents as they occur rather than just closing it to all newcomers.

I think it is so important to make this page available to all comers that it should only be semiprotected in extraordinary circumstances for a very brief time when it is subject to an intensive attack using multiple IPs/accounts at the same time, in a manner that cannot be dealt with by other means.

Note also that the Village Pump Talk page was also semiprotected indefinitely yesterday after one post from an IP (subsequently range-blocked globally for a week), even though it has been nearly a year since an inappropriate edit was last reverted on this page and it had not previously been vandalized since 2012. I think this action was beyond the pale.

More broadly, I have noticed an ever increasing number of pages being indefinitely semiprotected as a first resort, rather than blocking individuals or using brief protection during periods of disruption. Although I hold the personal view that it would be a good idea to require all editors to be registered, this is not Wikiquote's policy. As long as it is our policy that anyone can edit without registering an account, preventing unregistered or newly registered users from editing a page should be done with restraint, when other measures fail and as briefly as necessary, or when there is high risk of severe impact (as with widely used templates and the highly visible Main Page).

What do the rest of the administrators think is our best practice for the page protection tools? ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with both your points: I would be careful with using protection on the VP (and its Talk page) and I agree that indefinite protection of pages is more a last resort than a first step. I don't mind protection during obvious edit wars or periods of vandalism, but these periods should not be of indefinite duration. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protection has been lifted. I would just point out that the admin who semi-protected VP (for a week) is both very active in reverting and blocking vandals and very receptive and responsive to queries (for instance, just now when I asked them to remove the semi-protection, they did so 3 minutes later) – as such, they are most valuable to Wikiquote, and should be treated with respect. (I could say more, but para bom entendedor, meia palavra basta.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

No Gun Ri

We seem to be at a bit of an impasse. Admittedly, I wouldn't post this on the ANI for Wikipedia, but this seems to be a little less fast paced.

In a nutshell, myself and others had been working on the No Gun Ri Massacre article on Wikipedia (incidentally, a GA as of Feb), and had made a corresponding Wikiquote page. One of the persons on the article was a journalist involved in the original investigation, and was producing a ton of sources and quotes, way more than was appropriate for the article. Thus the Wikiquote. It was fine material, but it was more than an encyclopedia article could handle.

I logged back onto to WQ as I'm working toward collecting quotes for another page, and it seems Illegitimate Barrister has taken it upon themselves to blank the NGR page, and incorporate the quotes into the page on Korea. I undid and attempted to address on talk, but their response was simply that the quotes were already on the Korea page, and they reblanked.

As it happens, the quotes would not already be on the Korea page had this user not added them themselves. I personally feel the addition was without context and in generally poor taste, but the Korea page is not my baby, and I have no dog in that fight.

At any rate, it's the kind of circular logic that I hesitate to simply r/v because it seems like an obvious invitation to an edit war. I only dabble in Wikimedia and Wikiquote, but there doesn't seem to have been any analogue to request for merger in this case. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I realize this person is an admin, which is part of why I'm here. Also there is apparently no WQ:RfC, also why I'm here. And there is apparently zero guidance on when to use redirects on WQ, but it seems unlikely someone would search for No Gun Ri, when they really intend to find quotes on the Korean war generally. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this article on the No Gun Ri Massacre should not have been eliminated, and have restored it. It needs some minor formatting work on the quotes, which I might do within a day or so, if no one else does. Some of the quotes that were transferred to the Korean War page might be retained there if they are clearly relevant to that page, but some of them, without context, don’t seem clearly relevant there. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 22:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Would appreciate help on the formatting. I'm admittedly unfamiliar. I haven't found clear guidance...the MOS here seems to be mostly about general Wiki things and not WQ specifically. I could use the NGR page as guidance in the page I intend to create for Scranton General Strike, probably some time in the next month. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 23:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

ChanelQueens and Xmen

we got another problem with stuff from Xmen articles for the first time since 20spokesperson. ChanelQueens (talk · contributions) has been playing excuses about adding quotes and saying "it's not that bad." He's no different an idiot like that sockpuppet.--Eaglestorm (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

• I did make the changes, I gave him reason and disagreed. we have started an edit war. He didn't like my changes. ChanelQueens (talk) 13:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
• I was only new here and my account is different. ChanelQueens (talk) 13:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
• I was only trying to help but Eaglestorm declined all my edits It's not always him/her to do it. Wiki editors should agree to contribute each other, not an edit war, I din't use any account i am not 20spokesperson i'm only new here. ChanelQueens (talk) 13:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

You can deny all you want, but the articles from that franchise have gone through so much because of people like you who think setting up a new account makes them they can be the boss and change to what they desire. If you don't like the way it is, there's LOTS MORE film articles you can work on. Start there, hein?--Eaglestorm (talk) 13:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not like anybody. Everybody makes mistakes so I do something to fix it right. Both of us have started a war. We both disagree in our edits.ChanelQueens (talk) 13:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
• I never committed sock puppetry I didn't use any accounts. We have argued about our edits we made he didn't like it. ChanelQueens (talk) 13:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
• I understand the law of loq trimming. He didn't like my edits. We want contribution and agreement in our edits. So it would be kind of you to agree in our edits. ChanelQueens (talk) 13:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Y Result:

1. User:ChanelQueens is blocked for abusing multiple accounts, along with a sleeper and IP range per m:Steward requests/Checkuser#ChanelQueens@en.wikiquote.
2. User:Eaglestorm is admonished to be scrupulous about civility, lest the same thing happen here as at Wikipedia.

~ Ningauble (talk) 19:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

And I might add, Eaglestorm has been blocked twice already here for lacking civility (see here and here) ~ UDScott (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

And what you think is lacking civility is actually saying things as they really are. no sugarcoats. --Eaglestorm (talk) 04:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

You could easily say things as they are without resorting to calling someone names and making disparaging remarks - that's the point that you seem to be incapable of grasping. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I can't even believe you had to bring up something that was practically unwarranted and nothing more than gangups that shouldve netted a topic ban at best but certain people had to take shit further. Even more when one of those people behind that is even here. Sige sa inyo na How I met Your Mother, mga gago. Oh and as for 20spokespersonwhoeverthehellyouare, nice one trying to get past me. My suspicions were right. Don;t do this again. JUST STOP. --Eaglestorm (talk) 13:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)